In a typical communication system as theorised by Claude Shannon (1949)there is a transmitter with a message which is encoded before transmission over a communication line. Code tranmitted over a communication line is subject to noise brfore it reaches the receiver where it is allegedly decoded

Why does information have to be coded? Why not transmit information without code? And if the code is damaged in transmission wouldn't the information it contains be damage also?

Evo science seems to infer that mutation of the information carrying code can cause an increase in information. Dosen't this circumvent the model that Shannon theorised where information originates in the transmitter as a message?

Example of mutated code;

O sa kan u sea bi thu don's earl lee lite.

There doen't seem to be a change or increase in information of this "mutated" code. What gives? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dafydd Gibbon Sat May 18 21:14:28 MET DST 1996

In a typical communication system as theorised by Claude Shannon (1949)there is a transmitter with a message which is encoded before transmission over a communication line. Code tranmitted over a communication line is subject to noise brfore it reaches the receiver where it is allegedly decoded

Why does information have to be coded? Why not transmit information without code? And if the code is damaged in transmission wouldn't the information it contains be damage also?

Evo science seems to infer that mutation of the information carrying code can cause an increase in information. Dosen't this circumvent the model that Shannon theorised where information originates in the transmitter as a message?

Example of mutated code;

O sa kan u sea bi thu don's earl lee lite.

There doen't seem to be a change or increase in information of this "mutated" code. What gives? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dafydd Gibbon Sat May 18 21:14:28 MET DST 1996

Good luck if you want to get some evolutionist responses... In my experience most don't like to talk about information and how evolution could have caused it since they have no leg to stand on in that regard.

Thanks Gilbo. I tried a similar post a year ago. I thought I would try again. You are probably right. I can't even get a decent explanation from a google search as too what information is. One thing I think is true is that information does not seem to be subject to the laws of physics.

Yeah I had a run in with a student and she kept on saying that I have the burden of proof..... Though when I introduced the situation I gave evidence of the information itself.

Experiments where scientists neuter parts of an organisms DNA, and then they observe function loss thus indicating that the DNA neutered was responsible for that function.

I also gave demonstrations where natural events do not produce the systems required for comprehension of the information, let alone the information itself.

If the naturalist claims such a thing "evolved" then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that, we already observe information coming from intelligence every time we write / speak / listen / read, hence the design perspective is based on reality.

Yeah I had a run in with a student and she kept on saying that I have the burden of proof..... Though when I introduced the situation I gave evidence of the information itself. Experiments where scientists neuter parts of an organisms DNA, and then they observe function loss thus indicating that the DNA neutered was responsible for that function. I also gave demonstrations where natural events do not produce the systems required for comprehension of the information, let alone the information itself. If the naturalist claims such a thing "evolved" then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that, we already observe information coming from intelligence every time we write / speak / listen / read, hence the design perspective is based on reality. *Sorry for hijacking the thread, I return it to you now.

Yeah I had a run in with a student and she kept on saying that I have the burden of proof..... Though when I introduced the situation I gave evidence of the information itself. Experiments where scientists neuter parts of an organisms DNA, and then they observe function loss thus indicating that the DNA neutered was responsible for that function. I also gave demonstrations where natural events do not produce the systems required for comprehension of the information, let alone the information itself. If the naturalist claims such a thing "evolved" then they have the burden of proof to demonstrate that, we already observe information coming from intelligence every time we write / speak / listen / read, hence the design perspective is based on reality. *Sorry for hijacking the thread, I return it to you now.

I went on line to see if I could view some actual electron microscope images of genetic code. I must confess I could n't extract any information to build whatever from what I saw. Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought DNA was chemical as well as contained information--information on how to build an organism. If so, what reads the code to direct the building of the organism? I assumed that life read the code?

Like you said, every time we read write etc... we are using code driven my an intelligent force (us). Shannon argues that a disturbed signal contains more informatio. Dembski further clarifies how to detect intelligent design by the level of organization (distubance)something has--as opposed to natural forces of erosion caused by wind, rain, sunlight etc. Therefore, if we were crossing a desert and viewed a rectangular building say a hundred stories tall in front of us then our mind would supect intelligence had caused the building to be there. I noticed that squares, rectangles, and semi circles, are rarely found naturally occuring.

There is something special about design information. I'm just thinking. A digit or letter is actually just data, but combined this becomes meaningful text. But somehow I think there is even far more to the design of a machine, system or computer program.

Evolutions mechanism for the origination of information circumvents Claude Shannon's theory of information. Shannon's theory starts with a message resident in a transmitter. The message is encoded within the transmitter before it leaves the transmitter to travel via transmision lines to a receiver.

Most of us assume that a message is somehow stored in code and then transmitted over communication lines. As Shannon suggests noise can effect a communication line carrying code. Evolution seizes upon this fact and claims that modification of the code in the transmission line can increase information before arrival at the receiver.

Both Gitt and Shannon omit the learning process in their information theories. Gitt does acknowlege code and information are always intelligent in origin.

In human communication systems the transmitter is intelligent and the receiver is also. The message orginates in the transmitter not in the communication lines which only carries code why not tranmit pure information)?

My example demostrates modification of code residing in the communication line. The message was encoded in my mental state and then presented visually (visual code). Because you are intelligent and have an elaborate error trapping mechanism, the code arrives at the receiver (you) mutated but still evokes the correct message.

Moreover, a learning process must function to associate "simple" meaning to sound or visual code. Children are doing this when they learn to speak. Core meaning is the same in all human beings. Information as a menntal construct is not stored in code but associated to code in the learning process. There must be an agreement in both the transmitter and the receiver as to "simple' meaning. Once that has happened, code evokes information in the receiver.

Shannon unfortunately defined information and code as the same thing. Humans as an example speak different languages (code) but the fact that languages can be translated shows that code does not contain information. When you read the example sentence, you translated the code (corrected it in a way) to evoke the correct meaning.

In once sense it's amazing that no evo's have chimed in. From what I understand, mutation is the major mechanism of evolution--followed my "natural selection." Oh well. I tried.

Does anyone know the evo argument for why "most" intermediary species (missing links(?) have died out. Humans and apes have survived but not "our" common ancestor(s). This phoenomInon seems to play out in numerous species and is one of the most suspicious aspects of evo, leaving one to easily conclude that "transitonal morphology" is questionable. For example, species appear rather abrubtly in the often cited cambrian period.

I've often wondered about fish adapting to dry land and morphing legs, getting rid of their gills and adapting (evolving through numerous mico steps) a new way for acquire oxygen--why bother since fish seem to do so well in the ocean?.

That goes ditto for all the other species that co-exist beside others.

1) I am not at all a biologist, and anyway am leery of getting into things biological evolution for fear of running afoul of forum rules.

2) I am also not into information theory.

3) I recognize that I'm replying to material that seems to be off-topic. So my responses are also going to be off-topic. If there's a problem with this, please blame Mike.

In once sense it's amazing that no evo's have chimed in. From what I understand, mutation is the major mechanism of evolution--followed my "natural selection." Oh well. I tried.

Does anyone know the evo argument for why "most" intermediary species (missing links(?) have died out. Humans and apes have survived but not "our" common ancestor(s).

Per the common ancestor - One possibility would be extinction via evolution. There is nothing to say that the common ancestor must live on unchanged. As such, it could be looked upon as the common ancestor has survived as both the modern apes and as humans.

Per the missing links - See below.

This phoenomInon seems to play out in numerous species and is one of the most suspicious aspects of evo, leaving one to easily conclude that "transitonal morphology" is questionable. For example, species appear rather abrubtly in the often cited cambrian period.

I think that this might be where punctuated equilibrium might come in. As I understand it, a small isolated population undergoes relatively rapid evolution, which may only leave a relatively small geographic and time window for the transitionals existances to be preserved as fossils.

Per the common ancestor - One possibility would be extinction via evolution. There is nothing to say that the common ancestor must live on unchanged. As such, it could be looked upon as the common ancestor has survived as both the modern apes and as humans.

The problem with the above argument is that a transitional is supposed to be the bridge that allows new information to be transmitted to and create the new species. we are not reproductively copatible with apes.

again I think it suspicious that so many common ancestors are absent.

Returning to my op, the evolution mechanism of mutation and naturalm selection suffers from a credibility problem--whether it is capable of originating information IN not only one but several systems at he same time. .

Take the would need to be be numerous precise micro streams of change going on concurrently (for phenotype change) i.e bone consruction change (bird bones are hollow), respiration systemchanges, joint changes, muscle change, vision sytems changes, long range navigation sytems--even the ability to fly in formation which improves flying efficiency. Doubtless there are other system not mentioned. The mutations to produce all these changes would need to be takingm place at nearly the same time and still keep the animal viable in the present otherwise we would never get a bird. This is an incredible demand on random mutation and consquent natural selection.

What is, again, conspicuously absent are transitionals which would have to be fit enough to reproduce--presenting the question of why in so many species today transitionals are absent.

In a typical communication system as theorised by Claude Shannon (1949)there is a transmitter with a message which is encoded before transmission over a communication line. Code tranmitted over a communication line is subject to noise brfore it reaches the receiver where it is allegedly decoded

Why does information have to be coded? Why not transmit information without code? And if the code is damaged in transmission wouldn't the information it contains be damage also?

Evo science seems to infer that mutation of the information carrying code can cause an increase in information. Dosen't this circumvent the model that Shannon theorised where information originates in the transmitter as a message?

Example of mutated code;

O sa kan u sea bi thu don's earl lee lite.

There doen't seem to be a change or increase in information of this "mutated" code. What gives? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dafydd Gibbon Sat May 18 21:14:28 MET DST 1996

It would if everything in our DNA was functional and every mutation made a difference. As it stands however mutations usually have no noticable difference (even when deleting millions of "letters" from an animal's genetic "code" to see what will happen). Creationists assume that because, according to their worldview, life was designed the way we would design a clock that it's designed the way we design a clock - where everything has it's place and purpose and if you remove one gear or cog the whole thing comes grinding to a halt. This is why for decades they promoted the lie that all mutations cause harm.

If they'd started out actually looking at nature instead of making assumptions based on their ideology they never would've reached such a foolish conclusion. There are something like 150 genetic mutations per person per generation average (more as you age). An older man can pass a thousand or more mutations to their kids. They do not pass a thousand birth defects to their kids.

Good luck if you want to get some evolutionist responses... In my experience most don't like to talk about information and how evolution could have caused it since they have no leg to stand on in that regard.

I challenge anyone to prove this wrong

Really? In my experience they don't like to talk about "information" because creationists insist no mutation counts as "information" and refuse to define "information".

I went on line to see if I could view some actual electron microscope images of genetic code. I must confess I could n't extract any information to build whatever from what I saw. Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought DNA was chemical as well as contained information--information on how to build an organism. If so, what reads the code to direct the building of the organism? I assumed that life read the code?

Like you said, every time we read write etc... we are using code driven my an intelligent force (us). Shannon argues that a disturbed signal contains more informatio. Dembski further clarifies how to detect intelligent design by the level of organization (distubance)something has--as opposed to natural forces of erosion caused by wind, rain, sunlight etc. Therefore, if we were crossing a desert and viewed a rectangular building say a hundred stories tall in front of us then our mind would supect intelligence had caused the building to be there. I noticed that squares, rectangles, and semi circles, are rarely found naturally occuring.

I went on line to see if I could view some actual electron microscope images of genetic code. I must confess I could n't extract any information to build whatever from what I saw. Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought DNA was chemical as well as contained information--information on how to build an organism. If so, what reads the code to direct the building of the organism? I assumed that life read the code?

Like you said, every time we read write etc... we are using code driven my an intelligent force (us). Shannon argues that a disturbed signal contains more informatio. Dembski further clarifies how to detect intelligent design by the level of organization (distubance)something has--as opposed to natural forces of erosion caused by wind, rain, sunlight etc. Therefore, if we were crossing a desert and viewed a rectangular building say a hundred stories tall in front of us then our mind would supect intelligence had caused the building to be there. I noticed that squares, rectangles, and semi circles, are rarely found naturally occuring.

Genetic mutations and natural selection are natural forces too. Species are not eroded by the wind or rain. It's just ignoring some natural forces and embracing others.

The problem with the above argument is that a transitional is supposed to be the bridge that allows new information to be transmitted to and create the new species. we are not reproductively copatible with apes.

again I think it suspicious that so many common ancestors are absent.

Returning to my op, the evolution mechanism of mutation and naturalm selection suffers from a credibility problem--whether it is capable of originating information IN not only one but several systems at he same time. .

Take the would need to be be numerous precise micro streams of change going on concurrently (for phenotype change) i.e bone consruction change (bird bones are hollow), respiration systemchanges, joint changes, muscle change, vision sytems changes, long range navigation sytems--even the ability to fly in formation which improves flying efficiency. Doubtless there are other system not mentioned. The mutations to produce all these changes would need to be takingm place at nearly the same time and still keep the animal viable in the present otherwise we would never get a bird. This is an incredible demand on random mutation and consquent natural selection.

What is, again, conspicuously absent are transitionals which would have to be fit enough to reproduce--presenting the question of why in so many species today transitionals are absent.

The problem with the above argument is that a transitional is supposed to be the bridge that allows new information to be transmitted to and create the new species. we are not reproductively copatible with apes.

again I think it suspicious that so many common ancestors are absent.

Returning to my op, the evolution mechanism of mutation and naturalm selection suffers from a credibility problem--whether it is capable of originating information IN not only one but several systems at he same time. .

Take the would need to be be numerous precise micro streams of change going on concurrently (for phenotype change) i.e bone consruction change (bird bones are hollow), respiration systemchanges, joint changes, muscle change, vision sytems changes, long range navigation sytems--even the ability to fly in formation which improves flying efficiency. Doubtless there are other system not mentioned. The mutations to produce all these changes would need to be takingm place at nearly the same time and still keep the animal viable in the present otherwise we would never get a bird. This is an incredible demand on random mutation and consquent natural selection.

What is, again, conspicuously absent are transitionals which would have to be fit enough to reproduce--presenting the question of why in so many species today transitionals are absent.

The reason this is not a problem is that most mutations are neutral, they don't result in any significant change. Those that do are relatively rare, so every individual is not a random freak in 20 different ways, ie unsurvivable. Furthermore many traits can evolve simultaneously because of gene pools, think of natural selection like making spaghetti and using a strainer to separate useful mutations (noodles) from harmful ones (water). It's just a mechanism that continually removes harmful genetic variations and allows useful ones to accumulate freely.

"In once sense it's amazing that no evo's have chimed in. From what I understand, mutation is the major mechanism of evolution--followed my "natural selection." Oh well. I tried."

The first time I read the OP I wasn't sure what he was even talking about.

"Does anyone know the evo argument for why "most" intermediary species (missing links(?) have died out. Humans and apes have survived but not "our" common ancestor(s). This phoenomInon seems to play out in numerous species and is one of the most suspicious aspects of evo, leaving one to easily conclude that "transitonal morphology" is questionable."

This is like saying languages haven't changed over time because most languages have died out. It's a natural consequence of the fact that they're constantly changing. Why would any population of humans continue to speak ancient latin completely un-changed for 2,000 years? And when something like that does happen and some species don't change much over long periods of time (at least morphologically, I'm sure their immune system, organs etc were not identical) this is given as proof against evolution. So if species do change it disproves evolution and if they don't it also disproves evolution. Which one is it?

"For example, species appear rather abrubtly in the often cited cambrian period."

They don't actually, just the bits that fossilize. Before that the only fossils are single-celled organisms in rocks and impressions in stone of soft bodied creatures.

"I've often wondered about fish adapting to dry land and morphing legs, getting rid of their gills and adapting (evolving through numerous mico steps) a new way for acquire oxygen--why bother since fish seem to do so well in the ocean?"

Well I doubt natural selection would favor it much today as a first choice since there are so many extremely well adapted predators on land now - but when there were no threats on land it would have been enormously advantageous to be able to leave the water, even for a short time. Now the only species of fish that go on land tend to do so as a last resort, like the mudskipper which has fins which, like those of a seal, double as legs - it can survive on land for days at a time and supposedly even climb trees. There are also lungless frogs which absorb oxygen through their skin and many species of fish like bettas which breathe surface air and do not need gills.

"That goes ditto for all the other species that co-exist beside others."

1. This is like saying languages haven't changed over time because most languages have died out. It's a natural consequence of the fact that they're constantly changing. Why would any population of humans continue to speak ancient latin completely un-changed for 2,000 years?

2. And when something like that does happen and some species don't change much over long periods of time (at least morphologically, I'm sure their immune system, organs etc were not identical) this is given as proof against evolution.

3. So if species do change it disproves evolution and if they don't it also disproves evolution. Which one is it?

4. They don't actually, just the bits that fossilize. Before that the only fossils are single-celled organisms in rocks and impressions in stone of soft bodied creatures.

5. Well I doubt natural selection would favor it much today as a first choice since there are so many extremely well adapted predators on land now - but when there were no threats on land it would have been enormously advantageous to be able to leave the water, even for a short time.

6. Now the only species of fish that go on land tend to do so as a last resort, like the mudskipper which has fins which, like those of a seal, double as legs - it can survive on land for days at a time and supposedly even climb trees. There are also lungless frogs which absorb oxygen through their skin and many species of fish like bettas which breathe surface air and do not need gills.

1. Bad analogy... We are discussing fossils which should by all rights demonstrate a pattern of ancestry demonstrating most of the variations a species endures to become something else... ie- reptile to mammal. Languages do not leave fossils of their existence, therefore your analogy fails.

2. And your evidence for the organ and immune system changes is.....?

3. How do changes disprove evolution? (or is this another strawman?)

4. I'm going to assume that the bits that don't fossilise are the soft bits... Aren't bacteria soft also?

However it is well known in the literature that life certainly did "explode" on the scene hence the term Cambrian explosion.... Please go research this before you try debating it.

5. Honestly you don't believe that... You do realise that this is one of the many just-so-stories which evolution is based on, (as I have said to you before, you're words are not Golden, just because you claim something doesn't make it true, you need evidence).

a) how does the fish move onto the land? how does the fish breathe?c) how does the fish "evolve" breathing capability without the environmental pressure of breathing in air, since it cannot be exposed to this enviromental pressure until it gains the ability to breathe air? Leading to a paradox of logic.d) how does the fish prepare for the increased intensity of the suns rays?e) what are the biochemical mechanisms that make all this possible?

6. Mudskipper is an independant organism... Essentially its ad hoc reasoning since one can see the mudskipper and then formulate it into evolution. What you need as evidence are the mechanisms, as per point 5 (not mere observations).

I went on line to see if I could view some actual electron microscope images of genetic code. I must confess I could n't extract any information to build whatever from what I saw. Correct me if I am wrong but, I thought DNA was chemical as well as contained information--information on how to build an organism. If so, what reads the code to direct the building of the organism? I assumed that life read the code? Like you said, every time we read write etc... we are using code driven my an intelligent force (us). Shannon argues that a disturbed signal contains more informatio. Dembski further clarifies how to detect intelligent design by the level of organization (distubance)something has--as opposed to natural forces of erosion caused by wind, rain, sunlight etc. Therefore, if we were crossing a desert and viewed a rectangular building say a hundred stories tall in front of us then our mind would supect intelligence had caused the building to be there. I noticed that squares, rectangles, and semi circles, are rarely found naturally occuring.

DNA is a double chain the "links" of which are four different nucleotides - Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine - that weakly link to each other, Adenine to Thymine and Guaning to Cytosine. The "information" is simply the sequence of adenines, thymines, guanines and cytosines and given they link in pairs, the two strands of DNA are sort of like photo-negatives of each other that fit together like a zipper.The transcription process consists of molecules separating the two strands of DNA, and when they encounter certain combinations of three amino acids bits of RNA will then link to each base - RNA has the same amino acids as DNA except that it has Uracil (U) instead of Thymine (T). So then you've formed a strand of RNA that's matched to the corresponding bit of DNA. Then other molecules will react with that strand of RNA and amino acids and create chains of amino acids that correspond to the sequence of nucleotides in the RNA - each triplet of nucleotides corresponds to a single amino acid, or causes the transcription process to start or stop.Those chains of amino acids constitute proteins, which are the molecules that actually do everything in the body.

Shannon information isn't really the information you're looking for, it's about compression and predictability and things like that. A string of results from random coin tosses has Shannon information, not much intelligence involved there. In fact IIRC the more random a string is the more Shannon information it has - because it can't be compressed. It's got nothing to do with functionality.

DNA is a double chain the "links" of which are four different nucleotides - Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine - that weakly link to each other, Adenine to Thymine and Guaning to Cytosine. The "information" is simply the sequence of adenines, thymines, guanines and cytosines and given they link in pairs, the two strands of DNA are sort of like photo-negatives of each other that fit together like a zipper.The transcription process consists of molecules separating the two strands of DNA, and when they encounter certain combinations of three amino acids bits of RNA will then link to each base - RNA has the same amino acids as DNA except that it has Uracil (U) instead of Thymine (T). So then you've formed a strand of RNA that's matched to the corresponding bit of DNA. Then other molecules will react with that strand of RNA and amino acids and create chains of amino acids that correspond to the sequence of nucleotides in the RNA - each triplet of nucleotides corresponds to a single amino acid, or causes the transcription process to start or stop.Those chains of amino acids constitute proteins, which are the molecules that actually do everything in the body.

Shannon information isn't really the information you're looking for, it's about compression and predictability and things like that. A string of results from random coin tosses has Shannon information, not much intelligence involved there. In fact IIRC the more random a string is the more Shannon information it has - because it can't be compressed. It's got nothing to do with functionality.

Thank you for your response.

Obviously then, Shanno is not talking about mental information (the stuff that floats around in our mind). Shannon was an electrical engineer for Bell labs. Unfortunately he defined information and code ambiguously. They are not the same thing. Code (in reference to humans) is associated to information in a learning process...

Thank you for your response. Obviously then, Shanno is not talking about mental information (the stuff that floats around in our mind). Shannon was an electrical engineer for Bell labs. Unfortunately he defined information and code ambiguously. They are not the same thing. Code (in reference to humans) is associated to information in a learning process...

Code is analogous to language. When you say "cat," you are using code which references all the information your hearer has about cats.

Pure information is a difficult thing to describe, at least in part be cause description requires language, aka "code." Here's a feeble attempt from me, a layman, based on my own understanding:

Imagine a cube of pure carbon, floating in interstellar space. That cube contains information about itself. It contains the information about how big it is, how dense it is, even the precise position of every single one of its atoms at any given time. Nobody needs to see or measure that cube in any way, ever, for that information to exist. The information is part of the cube, and cnnot be removed from the cube without destroying the cube.

Now, if you want to describe the cube to someone else, you have to use code. The cube is the size and density that it is, and will continue to be that size and density regardless of whether or not it is described. When you examine the cube and measure it, you are, in essence, extracting a copy of that information, in code form. You can now say "it is a 1-cm cube of carbon with a mass of 2.2 grams," which is code for the information that the cube contains. The cube would have been exactly what it is if you had never encountered it, and that information would have remained, uncoded, for as long as the cube existed.

Even the word "cube" is code. It's not a cube, it's a description of a cube.

-----------------

As to your "mutated code" example, it has no real bearing on information encoded in DNA. As aelyn noted, DNA uses a 4-molecule "language," which, in turn, "tells" a cell which proteins to build, and how. The mutations that happen in DNA are primarily of two types: substitution and duplication.

here's a primitive allegory:

CAT is a three-letter string. When replicated, it might be rendered as CAP (substitution) or CATCAT (duplication). Once duplicated, the CATCAT string will continue to be passed on, and will itself be subject to the possibility of substitution or duplication. So we might see this, over many generations (each line representing a generation) :

If each three-letter sequence is regarded as instructions for making something, then it becomes clear that CATCAP contains more information about making things than the original CAT did. Now we can make a cat, a cap, and even a cat's cap. /&gt;